Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 15:59:04

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:
HI, GEN-MEDIEVALERS :)

I, Bill Arnold, scholar, have been on gen-medieval long enough
to write *a note on scholarship.* This is coming about because
I was not born yesterday. I have recently been taken to task for
not responding to posts when the subject heading was *Digest.*

I don't receive your posts through GEN-MEDIEVAL. I receive this
newsgroup through soc.genealogy.medieval

Therefore, I don't receive digests. I don't think I'm alone.


BA: This line of my scholarship message pertained to those who put
in the subject heading, or leave in the subject head, *Digest* which
does not lend itself to a response until the receive looks at everything,
which I do not.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 16:13:03

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Cambridge University Alumni, 1261-1900

Name:Robert Peck
College:ST CATHARINE'S
Died:1656
More Information:B.A. from ST CATHARINE'S, 1598-9. 3rd s. of Robert. B.
at Beccles, Suffolk. M.A. from Magdalene, 1603. Ord. deacon and priest
(Norwich) Feb. 24, 1604-5, age 25. C. of Oulton, Norfolk. R. of Hingham,
1605-38, 1646-56. A strong puritan; through his influence a large number
of his parishioners became nonconformists and emigrated to New England
where they founded Hingham, Mass., c. 1635. Under Bishop Wren he was
finally forced to flee to New England, 1638. Teacher of the church at
Hingham, Mass., 1638-41. Returned to England and was reinstated at
Hingham, Norfolk, 1646. Died there, 1656. Will (P.C.C.) 1658. Father of
Thomas (1624) and of Samuel (1629-30). (J. G. Bartlett.)

Hmm, no mention of the three supposed sons, Joseph, Robert and Nicholas,
unless they are the sons of a different Robert?

BA: well done, Renia. He is the Robert next to Joseph his brother and Nicholas
his brother in your above sentence. I have suggested anyone here could go
to LDS or Rootsweb:

Now you have confused me. Joseph, Robert and Nicholas were the sons of
which Robert? (Can't be 'the Robert next to Joseph his brother', because
you said this Robert and his brother were the sons of Robert.)


BA: the Joseph Peck of the 12th gen below had the brothers the Rev. Robert
and Nicholas. As you can see, there were three Roberts in direct descent,
and a slew of Nicholas, John, Joseph, etc., as well.
__________________________________________________________________
12TH GENERATION: 9/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
3425 3424
Rebecca Clark______________________Joseph Peck
b.2 May,1585,Hingham,Norfolk,GB. b.30Apr1587,Beccles,Suffolk,GB.
m.21 May 1617,Hingham,Norfolk, England, GB.
d.24 Oct 1637,Hingham,Suff.,GB. d.23 Dec 1663,Rehoboth,MA.
__________________________________________________________________
13TH GENERATION: 10/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
6849 6848
Ellen(Helen)Babb(Babbs)____________Robert Peck, Jr.
b.Sep 1546,Guildford,Surrey,GB. b.28 Nov 1548,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
m.22 Jul 1573,Beccles, Suffolk,England,GB .
d.31 Oct 1614,Beccles,Suff.,GB. d.22 Mar 1593,Beccles,Suff.,GB.
_________________________________________________________________
14TH GENERATION: 11/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
13697 13696
Joan(Johan) Waters_________________Robert Peck
b.1524,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. b.,GB.
m.1540,Beccles,Suffolk, England,GB.
d.Oct 1556,Beccles,Suffolk,GB. d.20 Nov 1556,Beccles,Suff.,GB.

__________________________________________________________________
15TH GENERATION: 12/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
27393 27392
Dau. of John Anne______________________John Peck
__________________________________________________________________
16TH GENERATION: 13/GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
__________________________________________________________________
54785 54784
Alice Middleton____________________Richard Peck
b.Yorkshire,GB. b.Yorkshire,GB.
m.?
d.aft.1491 d.24 Jun 1516,Wakefield,GB.
__________________________________________________________________
Bill

*****



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Renia

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Renia » 23 nov 2007 16:19:06

Bill Arnold wrote:
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:

HI, GEN-MEDIEVALERS :)

I, Bill Arnold, scholar, have been on gen-medieval long enough
to write *a note on scholarship.* This is coming about because
I was not born yesterday. I have recently been taken to task for
not responding to posts when the subject heading was *Digest.*

I don't receive your posts through GEN-MEDIEVAL. I receive this
newsgroup through soc.genealogy.medieval

Therefore, I don't receive digests. I don't think I'm alone.



BA: This line of my scholarship message pertained to those who put
in the subject heading, or leave in the subject head, *Digest* which
does not lend itself to a response until the receive looks at everything,
which I do not.


Did you say you taught English?

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 16:22:03

--- Leo van de Pas <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP


HI, GEN-MEDIEVALERS :)

I, Bill Arnold, scholar, have been on gen-medieval long enough
to write *a note on scholarship.* This is coming about because
I was not born yesterday. I have recently been taken to task for
not responding to posts when the subject heading was *Digest.*
Nice. Not very scholarly, the challenge to my ignoring that. I
have recently had a gent take to task my posts, one by one looking
for lint. And yet, the very same gent *ignored* one of my own
posts in which he was caught red-handed in a huge unscholarly
post. And, then, there is the insipid poster who loves terrible
British food and to attack anyone and everyone: and then play
kissy-kissy to those scholars he wishes to curry favor with. O,
yes, there is that supposed-scientist who takes all my posts apart
and forever ignoring the gen-medieval content and what this
list is all about, genealogy, and he too is looking for lint. I suggest
he study his navel, which is what he is doing anyway. So: to end
my note on scholarship I will express my appreciation to Don Stone
and his fine list for his academic freedom to allow us to speak our
minds and to Douglas Richardson for his scholarly posts, despite
the abuse he takes.

Bill,
allow me a Hinesian expression "Hilarious". Richardson's scholarly posts?
You think you have been long enough on gen-med to judge everything and
everyone. I say your presence, how long? Or should I say how short? Only a
matter of months? I have been here for (I think) over ten years.
A few _real_ scholars, who have departed from gen-med, have exposed the
shoddy knowledge of Richardson. Why do you think there is a webpage showing
errors/omissions in Richardsons "Plantagenet Ancestry"? No-one is perfect,
everybody makes misktakes. The only person who doesn't makes mistakes also
doesn't produce anything. Richardson had promised he would create such a
page, we waited I think about year and as nothing happened others did. Why
do you think there is a page with unanswered questions? A scholar should
explain his opinons, and if he can't should withdraw or change his stand.
SILENCE is not an option. Creating a mess and then walk away, how scholarly
is that?



Sure, I also respect Leo and Will for their fine
websites. But the latter two gents ought to temper their tongues
when they take on the lion, Douglas Richardson.

Bill,
You are joking. In the beginning everybody was pleasant and polite, after
all we are here to make friends. Not? When you have hit your head a few
times too many against a brick wall, you have to change your tune. When
"tempered" language doesn't do the trick, what do you do? Remain silent and
allow garbage to be distributed? Is that a scholarly approach? And talking
about "polite" and "tempered" how would you describe Richardson's treatment
of Tish not so long ago? Sexist and bullying come to my mind. You compare
Richardson with a lion? Again Hilarious, I'd better not say what animal I
have in mind.

If you do not
know he is the lion on this board then you probably do not know
who Gary Boyd Roberts is either.

Bill,
What has Douglas Richardson on Gen-Med to do with Gary Boyd Roberts, who
isn't?

So: if I do, in fact, ignore certain
posters as I have the insipid-one, that is of my choosing. And if
they wish to continue their lint-seeking missions, well, so what.
I could care less. I am a scholar, and I know how to play the
game as well as the best of them. I can ignore, retort, whatever,
as my gut and my mind push me at that moment just like the
rest of the world of scholars. C'est la vie!

Bill,
Ignoring evidence, like Richardson does, not even you can describe as
scholarly. Now another point, several years ago I suggested to a dear friend
of Richardson that he should not defend Richardson on Gen-Med because it
gives others reasons to disagree, and repeat reasons for their distrust of
Richardson and his "scholarly" approach. Your lyrical support for Richardson
just did the same.

To me you only like people who agree with you (also a Richardson trait) and
everyone who is "so foolish" to even debate your points have to be put into
their place. How scholarly is that?

And now I am going to continue ignoring you.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia.


BA: Hi, Leo. I respect your website. I do not respect the attacks against Douglas
Richardson, some of them blatant ad hominems. God is Perfect: although we
humble humans cannot fathom something perfect, above and beyond, and all
around and *in* us! I invoke the word Will/Spirit/Soul! Because we are not perfect,
as creations of <G> I ipso facto am not perfect. A touch of philosophy here. I
knew of Douglas Richardson's work *long* before I came to gen-medieval. I
do understand scholarship, being a scholar. Scholars are not perfect either.
But a lion deserves respect, especially when the rest of us are wilderbeast.
I can guess your scholarly retort to my little diatribe above. Surely, you agree
that Douglas Richardson posts scholarship. I have read a few others: John
Ravilious, for example. A few others. A few. What the others are doing here,
for the most part is being *gnats* as there are them kind on all message boards.
So, to make myself perfectly clear: as Renia wrote you, Douglas Richardson and
you can get alone without all the snippets. I have also said I can read beyond them
and do. I know Don Stone would love to see less ad hominems. Yes: even from me.
But, I do retort. And I am sure over ten years Douglas and you have retorted. But
it can cease, and if not: it can surely lessen in the interest of scholarship. In the
meantime, I meander my way across the scholarship field trying to avoid the cow
patties.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 16:31:04

BA: If you do not know he is the lion on this board then you probably do not know
who Gary Boyd Roberts is either.

LeovdPas: Bill, What has Douglas Richardson on Gen-Med to do with Gary Boyd
Roberts, who isn't?

BA: Gary Boy Roberts told me personally he does not do email. That was not
my point. My point is that in the world of genealogy Douglas Richardson and
Gary Boyd Roberts are Icons. Does that mean they do not deserve correction?
Of course not, but it does mean that their *reputations* precede them. I am
an internationally know Dickinson scholar. Am I beloved of all? Worse than that,
I am loved and hated equally because I *took/take* a controversial position on
the biography of Dickinson. I believe, as a scholar, that I am correct. And yet
I have my detractors. So what? So: if on a message board that allows ad hominems
I am attacked, in my face style, I give it back in spades and blades. Period.
So: yes, if Don Stone allows and Douglas Richardson hangs around, we can
keep it as it is. But I have a right to speak, as does the insipid-one, and others,
and I suggest it be tempered. Do as you please, just know it does not please
all and it does reflect upon yourself. Having said that, I know my own style
reflects upon myself: it is the burden of a scholar, to take the heat or get
out of the kitchen. Yesterday, for family I cooked the bird myself :0

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 16:35:07

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

HI, GEN-MEDIEVALERS :)

I, Bill Arnold, scholar, have been on gen-medieval long enough
to write *a note on scholarship.* This is coming about because
I was not born yesterday. I have recently been taken to task for
not responding to posts when the subject heading was *Digest.*
Nice. Not very scholarly, the challenge to my ignoring that. I
have recently had a gent take to task my posts, one by one looking
for lint. And yet, the very same gent *ignored* one of my own
posts in which he was caught red-handed in a huge unscholarly
post. And, then, there is the insipid poster who loves terrible
British food

Actually, that thread has removed itself from food and is more about the
British/English constitution.


BA: Can't prove it by me, as I delete it. If you want it read by more, then
the subject heading should reflect the changed subject.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 16:51:03

--- Diana Trenchard <diana@trenchar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Two apologies.
Firstly that in a previous message I omitted to change the subject
title from 'Digest' to above.
Secondly, for my poor choice of words when I said that Ira Peck 'had
the pedigree in his hands', when I should have said something like
'transcript of the pedigree' or 'information about the pedigree'.
The point I was making was where did the information come from which
was added to the pedigree. No way was I implying that Ira Peck had
altered the original pedigree in the British Museum. I was querying
where this information about the two families had come from that was
added, and questioning why it hadn't been put into the original
pedigree at the time it was drawn up

I was only trying to be helpful and point out where Bill Arnold's
information apparently had some flaws, and to make suggestions as to
how he could verify it - or not as the case may be - from primary
sources.

Instead I was treated in a condescending manner and told that I
should go and read a tertiary source (Ira Peck's book) or the IGI
(Ancestral File apparently) in order to obtain the truth.

So much for trying to be helpful!

Now it's back to my own world of primary sources, listing references
to sources, and trying to verify, verify, verify all that has been
written by other people.

Diana


BA: Not so fast, Diana. With all due respect to the archives, re-read
the posts I responded to: you will note two things, (1) you attacked
me for ignoring you, and I explained that; (2) you wrote in an abusive
tone, with all these *red flag* bullets to the left margin. Are you a
Peck descendant, and can I be of assistance? If not, c'est la vie!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 17:09:02

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:

HI, GEN-MEDIEVALERS :)

I, Bill Arnold, scholar, have been on gen-medieval long enough
to write *a note on scholarship.* This is coming about because
I was not born yesterday. I have recently been taken to task for
not responding to posts when the subject heading was *Digest.*

I don't receive your posts through GEN-MEDIEVAL. I receive this
newsgroup through soc.genealogy.medieval

Therefore, I don't receive digests. I don't think I'm alone.



BA: This line of my scholarship message pertained to those who put
in the subject heading, or leave in the subject head, *Digest* which
does not lend itself to a response until the receive looks at everything,
which I do not.


Did you say you taught English?


BA: OK, I get the picture, again: no lady, right? I typed it fast, did not
proofread it with my DSL installed this morning. I apologize that I offend
your good nature. I will go back to something else. It seems that whenever
two people on this list BEGIN to get along, one just has to hit the other
with an unnecessary hammer. Enjoy. Yes, Breathless One, I did teach college
English. These are posts to a message board. They are not proofed like
a book. Again, enjoy.

Bill

*****





____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 17:10:03

On Nov 23, 7:48 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Diana Trenchard <di...@trenchar.demon.co.uk> wrote:



Two apologies.
Firstly that in a previous message I omitted to change the subject
title from 'Digest' to above.
Secondly, for my poor choice of words when I said that Ira Peck 'had
the pedigree in his hands', when I should have said something like
'transcript of the pedigree' or 'information about the pedigree'.
The point I was making was where did the information come from which
was added to the pedigree. No way was I implying that Ira Peck had
altered the original pedigree in the British Museum. I was querying
where this information about the two families had come from that was
added, and questioning why it hadn't been put into the original
pedigree at the time it was drawn up

I was only trying to be helpful and point out where Bill Arnold's
information apparently had some flaws, and to make suggestions as to
how he could verify it - or not as the case may be - from primary
sources.

Instead I was treated in a condescending manner and told that I
should go and read a tertiary source (Ira Peck's book) or the IGI
(Ancestral File apparently) in order to obtain the truth.

So much for trying to be helpful!

Now it's back to my own world of primary sources, listing references
to sources, and trying to verify, verify, verify all that has been
written by other people.

BA: Not so fast, Diana. With all due respect to the archives,

Why are the archives due respect?

re-read
the posts I responded to: you will note two things, (1) you attacked
me for ignoring you, and I explained that; (2) you wrote in an abusive
tone, with all these *red flag* bullets to the left margin.

She also lined out what problems she had with the purported critical
connection in the pedigree, but do you respond to that, you know, the
genealogy you wish everyone would discuss? No, you throw a little
hissy-fit and say the equivalent of "because I say it is" and beat up
a ridiculous strawman, and that is the sum total that you discuss the
genealogy.

Which is it? Do you want to discuss the genealogy or not?

It is patently ridiculous that you continue to defend a 19th century
book as source for early 17th century events. Do you want to discuss
why that is the case?

It is naive to think that a herald's pedigree has the same weight as
the record of a court proceeding. Would you like to discuss that?

Or are these True and Certain Facts simply because you say they are?

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 17:24:02

BA: Not so fast, Diana. With all due respect to the archives,

TAF: Why are the archives due respect?

BA: "I know what I was feeling, but what was I thinking." That is a line
from a song I am sure you have never heard. It is an apt answer.

TAF: She also lined out what problems she had with the purported critical
connection in the pedigree, but do you respond to that, you know, the
genealogy you wish everyone would discuss? No, you throw a little
hissy-fit and say the equivalent of "because I say it is" and beat up
a ridiculous strawman, and that is the sum total that you discuss the
genealogy.

BA: I know you are not going to believe this, but I was thinking the very
same thing about you, Will, and a few others on this list. It happens on
all lists which allow personal attacks on the messenger, aka ad hominems.
I could do as you do: rip apart a message, and do interlinear. But you know
something, Sir, you only rip apart what you want to rip apart and ignore
that part which sets you in poor light or which is substance of the message
which you choose to ignore because it makes the point of the messenger.
In other words: you *ignore* substance once you target a messenger for
destruction. I clearly see your game, because that is what it IS: your game!
Now: please note: I have *not* responded to The Insipid-One in a long time.
You are now a member of that *no mas* messages to TAF from BA. Wheedle!
Cajole! Dance to the light of the moon! Say something brilliant! No care I!
So:
do as you will, write away, but do *not* expect me to respond if it comes
from TAF. C'est la vie!

Bill

*****






____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Gjest

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 17:40:03

On Nov 23, 8:07 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--- Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: This line of my scholarship message pertained to those who put
in the subject heading, or leave in the subject head, *Digest* which
does not lend itself to a response until the receive looks at everything,
which I do not.

Did you say you taught English?

BA: OK, I get the picture, again: no lady, right? I typed it fast, did not
proofread it with my DSL installed this morning. I apologize that I offend
your good nature. I will go back to something else. It seems that whenever
two people on this list BEGIN to get along, one just has to hit the other
with an unnecessary hammer. Enjoy. Yes, Breathless One, I did teach college
English. These are posts to a message board. They are not proofed like
a book. Again, enjoy.


This from Mr. Professor Proofreader himself? This from the person who
initiated an entire post to criticize a single mistyped word, and who
added proofreading marks to a post he was quoting, and now calls such
behavior unworthy. Sir, your standards, they be double.

(And why, oh why, when Bill wants to talk about genealogy does this
Professor Arnold guy insist on posting about such irrelevancies?)

taf

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 23 nov 2007 17:42:03

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f464ba473john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...

.. They reign at our pleasure because we choose them above
Presidents; should they start to believe their own propaganda at being
chosen
by God - or being special in any other way - then it's time to call them
in
for a career interview and to reconsider their working conditions and side
benefits.

We've been there and done that, and cut his head off...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Skraedder

Re: What the hell with that old style calendar ???

Legg inn av Skraedder » 23 nov 2007 17:47:24

Leticia Cluff wrote:
Something that has always struck me as curious about leap years is
that the added (intercalary) day in February is not actually the 29th
(as I believed for the first three decades of my life) but is inserted
after the 23rd, so that the 24th is renumbered as the 25th, and so on.
But who am I to argue with Censorinus?


See here for details...
http://www.tondering.dk/claus/calendar.html

Skraedder

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 18:07:01

On Nov 23, 8:22 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I clearly see your game, because that is what it IS: your game!
Now: please note: I have *not* responded to The Insipid-One in a long time.
You are now a member of that *no mas* messages to TAF from BA. Wheedle!
Cajole! Dance to the light of the moon! Say something brilliant! No care I!
So:
do as you will, write away, but do *not* expect me to respond if it comes
from TAF. C'est la vie!

That's right - given another chance to discuss the genealogy, Bill
whines about the style and says he will ignore further posts.

But the Peck pedigree is _still_ based on an untrustworthy source. The
information it contained is _still_ not the True and Certain Fact he
would pretend it to be. It is _still_ not beyond contention. The
British Library Ms pedigree is _still_ not of a 17th century
provenance. Robert Peck Sr was _still_ "of Beccles". Ira B. Peck was
_still_ telling tales about things he had no knowledge of. And any
formulation of "a statement of fact is a fact, unless it disagrees
with my preconceptions" is _still_ patently ridiculous.


But I guess Bill will rebut these criticisms by resoundingly ignoring
them.

taf

Gjest

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 18:20:05

In a message dated 11/22/2007 11:10:29 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
marwd_124@hotmail.com writes:

The four sons of Thomas More and Mary Scrope were: John (1557-1599) -
unmarried; Thomas (1565-1625) - a Secular Priest; Henry (1566-1597) -
joined the Order of St. Francis de Paul, or Minims; Cresacre
(1572-1649).


--------------------------
I had pointed out afterward how we do not actually know the exact year in
which John died.
Unless you can quote a source stating it, that we can verify.
Thanks
Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 18:26:02

In a message dated 11/23/2007 1:55:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
renia@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

DNB says of Cresacre More:
He married a daughter of Thomas Gage, a descendant of Sir John Gage
[q.v.]; she died on 15 July 1618. Cresacre had a son Thomas (d 1660),
and two daughters, Helen (changed her named to Gertrude More and became
a nun) and Bridget.


----------------
Yes by the way, Bridget also became a nun. One of them, I forget actually
became rather high-up like a prioress of something of the sort. The line goes
forward about another 4 generations, I was tracing them yesterday, if anyone
is interested I will give more details.

As to Miss Gage, I had already had two daughters, unmarried in their uncle's
will, and then the other day I found that someone calls her Elizabeth Gage.
So if correct that would decide which of the two he married. If you want
the source I'll forward it when I get to my office.

Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 18:27:03

In a message dated 11/22/2007 11:15:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
marwd_124@hotmail.com writes:

The Thomas More (born 1565; died Rome 1625) gave up his patrimony to
his brother Cresacre, not because he married and had issue, but
because he was a priest.


-------------
I did not state that it was "because" he married and had issue. I stated
that he apparently married and had issue and yet gave up his patrimony...



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Gjest

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 18:28:02

In a message dated 11/23/2007 4:25:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

Thomas More and Mary le Scrope had 8 daughters and five sons. The
missing son appears to be Gratian b. abt 1568.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

I'd like to add that but where are you getting it from?
Thanks
Will Johnson



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Renia

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Renia » 23 nov 2007 18:34:31

Bill Arnold wrote:
--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:



Bill Arnold wrote:


HI, GEN-MEDIEVALERS :)

I, Bill Arnold, scholar, have been on gen-medieval long enough
to write *a note on scholarship.* This is coming about because
I was not born yesterday. I have recently been taken to task for
not responding to posts when the subject heading was *Digest.*

I don't receive your posts through GEN-MEDIEVAL. I receive this
newsgroup through soc.genealogy.medieval

Therefore, I don't receive digests. I don't think I'm alone.



BA: This line of my scholarship message pertained to those who put
in the subject heading, or leave in the subject head, *Digest* which
does not lend itself to a response until the receive looks at everything,
which I do not.


Did you say you taught English?



BA: OK, I get the picture, again: no lady, right? I typed it fast, did not
proofread it with my DSL installed this morning. I apologize that I offend
your good nature. I will go back to something else. It seems that whenever
two people on this list BEGIN to get along, one just has to hit the other
with an unnecessary hammer. Enjoy. Yes, Breathless One, I did teach college
English. These are posts to a message board. They are not proofed like
a book. Again, enjoy.

The only software I use for proof-reading are the little grey cells in
my brain.

We all make mistakes. All of us. We all type quickly, being keen to
write down what we want to say. Most of the time, it doesn't matter how
things are written. You are quite correct - it's only a newsgroup.

But when someone spends half the time boasting of how he used to teach
English, then we would expect a better standard of writing. Is that
important? Not in itself, but someone who boasts about one thing but is
found lacking in it, may be found lacking in other areas he boasts of.

Like scholarship.

Gjest

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 18:39:03

In a message dated 11/23/2007 5:15:34 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alden@mindspring.com writes:

Might DNB not be continuing Dodd's error? As I
understand it, the Henry b. 1586 would be the great great grandson of
Sir Thomas More.>>>


-------------------------------------------------
I'm dubious without being able to verify it myself. I always like to see,
with my own eyes, what each source states. So for the time being, I have
Edward and Mary floating around without parents :)

Will Johnson




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

John Briggs

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 23 nov 2007 18:40:06

John Cartmell wrote:
In article <fi6m6f$l7n$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)

Sorry - I won't do it again :-)
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 23 nov 2007 18:41:34

John Briggs wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

In article <fi6m6f$l7n$1@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)

Gjest

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 18:45:04

In a message dated 11/23/2007 9:40:27 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com writes:

What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise Windsor" and
"HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a title?>>
-------------------
"Louise"

Hard to resist an opening like that.





**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Peck Pedigree Non-Resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT Not Pr

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 nov 2007 18:52:56

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.367.1195834989.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

BA: Not so fast, Diana. With all due respect to the archives,

TAF: Why are the archives due respect?

BA: "I know what I was feeling, but what was I thinking." That is a line
from a song I am sure you have never heard. It is an apt answer.

TAF: She also lined out what problems she had with the purported critical
connection in the pedigree, but do you respond to that, you know, the
genealogy you wish everyone would discuss? No, you throw a little
hissy-fit and say the equivalent of "because I say it is" and beat up
a ridiculous strawman, and that is the sum total that you discuss the
genealogy.

Because he wants OTHERS to find his alleged CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT for him.
He's not interested in the GENEALOGY; he's just interested in the RESULTS --
served up on a silver platter.

He wants OTHERS to do the discussion of the Genealogy. He just wants to
OBSERVE and CRITIQUE. He's made that quite clear to even the dumbest among
us.

taf is as thick as a teak plank on a battleship if he doesn't understand
that.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

John Briggs

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 23 nov 2007 18:53:02

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)

Actually, Hines did - which is a trifle distressing, but I think it was a
lucky guess :-)
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 nov 2007 19:03:41

EDIT it after you type it.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi72v5$qk4$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

> We all type quickly, being keen to write down what we want to say.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 23 nov 2007 19:07:01

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)


Actually, Hines did - which is a trifle distressing, but I think it was a
lucky guess :-)

Drat. I was hoping he was wrong!!!

Well done, Hines.

alden@mindspring.com

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av alden@mindspring.com » 23 nov 2007 19:09:02

On Nov 23, 12:25 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/23/2007 4:25:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

al...@mindspring.com writes:

Thomas More and Mary le Scrope had 8 daughters and five sons. The
missing son appears to be Gratian b. abt 1568.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

I'd like to add that but where are you getting it from?
Thanks
Will Johnson

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

From appendices in Cresacre More's book, pps 361-363.

Doug

But see Hunter interprets that as a dau. Grace.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 nov 2007 19:10:31

Hilarious!

Of COURSE it was distressing to Briggs...more than a trifle.

Someone else then followed up on my correct answer and fleshed out a few of
the details.

Here are some more details:

William III of England [William The Conqueror and William II 'Rufus' were
the first two] ---- William of Orange [1650-1702]

William II of Scotland [William 'The Lion' was the first]

William I of Ireland.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jtE1j.3722$B97.1633@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)

Actually, Hines did - which is a trifle distressing, but I think it was a
lucky guess :-)
--
John Briggs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 nov 2007 19:14:48

<G>

Thank you.

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi74s3$rgh$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)


Actually, Hines did - which is a trifle distressing, but I think it was a
lucky guess :-)

Drat. I was hoping he was wrong!!!

Well done, Hines.

John Briggs

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 23 nov 2007 19:14:54

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:

John Cartmell wrote:

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)


Actually, Hines did - which is a trifle distressing, but I think it
was a lucky guess :-)

Drat. I was hoping he was wrong!!!

Well done, Hines.

William was also William III, Prince of Orange [Guillaume? Willem?]

Here's a supplementary: when William III was fighting his father-in-law
James II [etc] in Ireland, who did the Pope support?
--
John Briggs

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 23 nov 2007 19:22:19

John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:


Renia wrote:


John Briggs wrote:


John Cartmell wrote:


Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:



Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)


Actually, Hines did - which is a trifle distressing, but I think it
was a lucky guess :-)

Drat. I was hoping he was wrong!!!

Well done, Hines.


William was also William III, Prince of Orange [Guillaume? Willem?]

Here's a supplementary: when William III was fighting his father-in-law
James II [etc] in Ireland, who did the Pope support?

Manchester United? Tottenham Hotspur? Real Madrid?

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 23 nov 2007 19:31:03

In article <fi6vpb$4l1$1@registered.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f464ba473john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...

They reign at our pleasure because we choose them above Presidents;
should they start to believe their own propaganda at being chosen by God
- or being special in any other way - then it's time to call them in for
a career interview and to reconsider their working conditions and side
benefits.

We've been there and done that, and cut his head off...

And if we have to do it again ...

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 23 nov 2007 20:37:00

STARK...

Source?

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]

July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.
April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.
September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.
June 1954 - Meat and bacon.

You couldn't buy a hamburger, yet here was Edinburgh Corporation handing
precious metal gifts to the richest woman in the World.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 23 nov 2007 20:39:33

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VzA1j.42091$9Y3.40244@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi4vi6$2hn$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:

"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc. Now, that under Western Democracy, the government
is no longer the monarch, the monarch has no entitlement to the Crown
Estate revenues at all.

Although I applaud the fact that the royals pay income tax, it seems
that this is only on civil list payments received. They still seem to
be tax exempt on "personal income". Can someone correct me on this? I
don't think that this is fair. On the other hand, I don't have strong
objections to the monarch's exemption from inheritance tax. Royal
properties and privately owned lands should be passed on; after all,
they can hardly sell them off, can they?



On the unrelated issue of teaching creationism, I believe that it can
(and maybe should) be taught in state schools but in Religion lessons.
In Sciene lessons, there should only be a brief reference to it as ONE
of the theories of life.



Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In
effect they were stolen.
Royals were never elected but took what they wanted at the expense of
others.

Charles II was elected as was William of Orange and his wife, Mary.

Royals didn't "take what they wanted", as such. William the Conqueror
conquered England, hence his monicker. Everything, but everything in
England belonged to him. Hence Domesday Book. Slowly, his descendants
began to give it to the nation.


What right do they now have to hold on to what they stole from the
others in the country?
I'm not suggesting taking their lands away from them or sending them to
the guillotine. Just stopping them getting anything else from the
public
purse.

You are a bitter, bitter old man.


After that it would be up to them to make the most of the assets they
already have.
Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried
out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is given
some kind of token.

She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of her
personal wealth.

And can we please stop this rubbish dead?

Only the Queen & Prince Phillip receive the Civil List, I believe - about
£40 million? Peanuts in terms of national budgets.
Out of which Gawd knows what in terms of staff, etc. is paid, plus incomes
given to some lesser Royals.

Some 5 times that is returned annually to the state from the Crown
Estates,
let alone income now gained from previous Royal estates now owned by the
state.

There is no fact whatsoever in such financial attacks

End of story?

Surreyman



Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got rid
of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with their heads
still on their bodies.
They stole their lands and riches from others and then had the hard necks to
tax their enforced subjects to support their extravagant lifestyles.
"Let them eat cake", may or may not have been a correct quotation but it
sure as hell typified them.
That money from the Crown Estates was not theirs to start with.
People who worship other humans as if the other humans were somehow superior
beings obviously have massive need for someone to look up to.
Conversely they must have massive inferiority complexes.
Mind you the same could be said of God Worshipers.
Have you one shred of evidence that any Royal person is in any way superior,
in either mind, body or moral rectitude than a commoner?
Have you one shred of evidence that any God, anywhere, actually exists?
We need evidence, not credos.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 23 nov 2007 20:41:47

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f464ba473john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <VzA1j.42091$9Y3.40244@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>,
a.spencer3 <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi4vi6$2hn$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:

"Toby" <tstanbrook@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:72f8b7d8-1413-4af2-b239-539eba32b0e8@g30g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

First, in regards to the Crown Estate, it has been highlighted in
the
press by royal servants that the UK government should return the
Crown
Estate revenues if the civil list payments are stopped. The response
was that historically, the Crown Estate was used toprovide a revenue
to the monarch for effective government of the kingdom ie. building
roads, defence, etc.

[Snip]

Let us be blunt about this subject.
The royal lands were taken by dint of military power over others. In
effect they were stolen.

[Snip]

Just think of this, Elizabeth was crowned in 1953 and she has carried
out her, "Royal Duty", ever since. Now every gig she does she is
given
some kind of token.

She holds these gifts for the nation. They do not constitute part of
her
personal wealth.

And can we please stop this rubbish dead?

[Snip]

There is no fact whatsoever in such financial attacks

Lots of facts. Most correct. Lots of opinion.

End of story?

No.
It is acceptable to question why the descendants of brigands and bastards
should have rights beyond anyone else simply because their ancestors were
willing to be more murderously nasty than anyone else. The answer is that
they
have those rights because Parliament (for the people) has freely given
them
that right.
It is acceptable to regularly question that grant and to bring the
'Royals'
back down to Earth. They reign at our pleasure because we choose them
above
Presidents; should they start to believe their own propaganda at being
chosen
by God - or being special in any other way - then it's time to call them
in
for a career interview and to reconsider their working conditions and side
benefits.

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing


Well said indeed.

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 23 nov 2007 20:48:58

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EGA1j.27941$ib1.26818@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:JcydnWbzrucCc9janZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...

his name isn't george.

It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.

Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the second
of
Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs


Who bloody cares?


Well, this is a History group, not soc.rabid.anti.royals

Surreyman



Oh! So just what, "group", did you think you posted your message into?
Your headers say,
"alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty,soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval".
I, and several others, are reading your stuff in, "soc.culture.scottish",
and it is not yours, or anybody else's place to tell us what we should
discuss in the groups we are reading your posts in.
If you think them off topic in whatever group you are reading them in then
trim that group from the headers before you hit send.
--
Auld Bob Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 20:49:04

Renia: The only software I use for proof-reading are the little grey cells in
my brain.

BA: When I proofread at a newspaper, we had the NYT Style sheet.

Renia: We all make mistakes. All of us. We all type quickly, being keen to
write down what we want to say. Most of the time, it doesn't matter how
things are written. You are quite correct - it's only a newsgroup.

BA: Why didn't you end there?

Renia: But when someone spends half the time boasting of how he used to teach
English, then we would expect a better standard of writing. Is that
important? Not in itself, but someone who boasts about one thing but is
found lacking in it, may be found lacking in other areas he boasts of.
Like scholarship.

BA: Well, I am speechless. You: The Ice Princess! Does it bother you I was
a professor of classics? And I taught English Comp 101 and 102, all the
frosh stuff including research paper? Of course, I taught the MLA Style
Sheet rules. Does that bother you, too? But of course: You are The Ice
Princess.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Robert Peffers

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Robert Peffers » 23 nov 2007 20:52:57

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi75op$rq3$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

John Briggs wrote:


Renia wrote:


John Briggs wrote:


John Cartmell wrote:


Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:



Not only that, but it is a question actually on topic for all the
groups it has been cross-posted to:

alt.history.british
alt.talk.royalty
soc.culture.scottish
soc.genealogy.medieval
soc.history.medieval

Is that a first? ;-)


Sorry - I won't do it again :-)

You didn't give us the answer! :-)


Actually, Hines did - which is a trifle distressing, but I think it
was a lucky guess :-)

Drat. I was hoping he was wrong!!!

Well done, Hines.


William was also William III, Prince of Orange [Guillaume? Willem?]

Here's a supplementary: when William III was fighting his father-in-law
James II [etc] in Ireland, who did the Pope support?

Manchester United? Tottenham Hotspur? Real Madrid?

Nope! Glasgow Celtic.

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree Non-Resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT Not Pr

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 20:59:04

DSH: Because he wants OTHERS to find his alleged CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT
for him. He's not interested in the GENEALOGY; he's just interested in the
RESULTS --served up on a silver platter. He wants OTHERS to do the discussion
of the Genealogy. He just wants to OBSERVE and CRITIQUE. He's made that quite
clear to even the dumbest among us. taf is as thick as a teak plank on a battleship
if he doesn't understand that.

BA: O, Monsieur Insipid One! You are still as wet as a wrungout hen. Will was
right: I already have enough to complete my gen in this lineage, with the usual
caveat of any good genealogist: the adjective *probable.* Some might argue it
should be *possible* but I will opt for *probable* as what does it matter to others.
It is my gen and my book. Caveat Emptor on those ALL CAPS as The Deconstructionist
will accuse you of SHOUTING!!! I will, in the final analysis, probably label the chapter
on this lineage: "An Intriguing Possibility Which Is Probably True And Certain." Try
that one on for size, shape and significance. And your royal lineage IS?

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Gjest

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 21:21:02

On Nov 23, 5:23 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/23/2007 1:55:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

re...@DELETEotenet.gr writes:

DNB says of CresacreMore:
He married a daughter ofThomasGage, a descendant ofSir John Gage
[q.v.]; she died on 15 July 1618. Cresacre had a sonThomas(d 1660),
and two daughters, Helen (changed her named to GertrudeMoreand became
a nun) and Bridget.

----------------
Yes by the way, Bridget also became a nun. One of them, I forget actually
became rather high-up like a prioress of something of the sort. The line goes
forward about another 4 generations, I was tracing them yesterday, if anyone
is interested I will givemoredetails.

As to Miss Gage, I had already had two daughters, unmarried in their uncle's
will, and then the other day I found that someone calls her Elizabeth Gage.
So if correct that would decide which of the two he married. If you want
the source I'll forward it when I get to my office.

Will Johnson

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Anyone with information about More family research in England over the
last 40 years will know that there is no mystery about any of this.
Elizabeth Gage (who married Cresacre More) was the daughter of Thomas
Gage of Firle Place, Sussex (third son of Sir Edward Gage of Firle)
and his wife Elizabeth Guldeford. Elizabeth was born on 24 August
1585. She died on 15 July 1610, not 1618 (an often copied mistake).
There is a portrait of Cresacre More painted in 1610 which shows him
dressed in mourning following her death.
Martin Wood

Leo van de Pas

Re: Ancestry of Elisabet Sevedsdotter Ribbing, the secret wi

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 nov 2007 21:25:54

Isenburg in his volume II does give this marriage but Schwennicke does not.
Can you give more details about this daughter? Did she marry? Have children?
With many thanks.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qsj5@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:35 AM
Subject: Ancestry of Elisabet Sevedsdotter Ribbing,the secret wife of
Charles Philip of Sweden, duke of Sudermannia



Duke Charles Philip, younger brother of king Gustav II
Adolf of Sweden, married secretly but -by all I know-
validly a noblewoman, lady Elisabet Ribbing. They had
a posthumous daughter together, Elisabet, who was not
recognized as royal princess of Sweden.
Europäische Stammtafeln fairly laconically mentions
just a couple of words about her antecedents.

Elisabet Ribbing was of an agnatically Eastern-Danish
(specifically, Hallander) noble family, and her
ancestry encompassed noble lineages of Sweden and
Denmark. One of her
great-great-great-great-grandfathers was king Charles
VIII of Sweden.

Ahnentafel:

1 Elisabet Ribbing

2 Seved Svendsen Ribbing, lord of Festered, High
Treasurer of Sweden
3 Anna Eriksdotter Gyllenstierna, from Sweden - (of
the originally Danish Gyldenstjerne)

4 Svend Knudsen Ribbing, lord of Festered
5 Anna Bengtsdotter Gylta
6 Erik Carlsson Gyllenstierna, lord of Vinstorp
7 Karin Nilsdotter Bielke

8 Knud Pedersen Ribbing, lord of Svanseryd
9 Kerstin Gustavsdotter av Festered
10 Bengt Pedersson Gylta, lord of Paatorp
11 Brita Bengtsdotter av Lagnö
12 Carl Eriksson av Fogelvik, lord of Vinstorp
13 Marina Nilsdotter av Vines
14 Nils Pedersson av Kraakerum
15 Anne Lemetintytär Hogenskild, heiress of Hedensö,
Åkerö and Nyynäinen (born in Finland)

16 Peder Ribbing, from Halland's borders, presumably
from vicinity of Öresten fortress
17 Märta Bosdotter av Ekesiö, maternal granddaughter
of Svend Nielsen Sture, a Dane, erstwhile governor in
Gulland
18 Gustav Matsson (?av Festered?)
19 Brita Pedersdotter av Flishult
20 Peder Bengtsson av Paatorp
21 Ingeborg Persdotter
22 Bengt Gregersson av Lagnö
23 Märta Arndtsdotter av Nynes, heiress of Tyresö,
daughter of Hebbla Albrechtsdatter Bydelsbak, of the
Danish 'Bydelsbak' of the Helsingor fame (Helsingor =
Elsinore)
24 Erik Eriksson av Fogelvik; maternal grandson of
king Charles VIII; Erik was agnatically from the
Danish Gyldenstjerne, and descendant of the Lunge, of
the Saltensee, of the Ordrup and of the Aagaard,
nobles in Denmark
25 Anna Karlsdotter av Vinstorp, descendant of the
Pijk and of the Tommerup
26 Nils Bosson av Vines - descendant of Bo Jonson of
Gripsholm, who in latter 1300s had "owned half of
Sweden"
27 Anne Arvidsdatter Trolle, daughter of Arvid
Birgersson av Bergkvara and Beate Iversdatter af
Gulland, heiress of Lilloe (who in turn was daughter
of a Thott and a Laxmand, Danish families)
28 Peder Turesson av Kraakerum, descendant of the
Krummedige and the Kyrning, Danish families
29 Karen Nielsdatter af Ellinge, heiress of Vik
30 Lemetti Pentinpoika Hogenskild; from Fyen, Denmark
- made his career in Finland
31 Anne Hannuntytär de Bjurum, settled in Finland,
from a Danish family [Thott]


source: Elgenstierna, volumes I-IX
Äldre Svenska Frälsesläkter I:1-3 and II:1



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree Non-Resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT Not Pr

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 nov 2007 21:35:02

On Nov 23, 11:56 am, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:

BA: O, Monsieur Insipid One! You are still as wet as a wrungout hen. Will was
right: I already have enough to complete my gen in this lineage, with the usual
caveat of any good genealogist: the adjective *probable.* Some might argue it
should be *possible* but I will opt for *probable* as what does it matter to others.
It is my gen and my book.

What does it matter if one is uninterested in accurately portraying
the accuracy of a genealogical reconstruction? If nothing else, it
reveals something about their "scholarship".

Caveat Emptor on those ALL CAPS as The Deconstructionist
will accuse you of SHOUTING!!!

Caveat emptor? You are using this no more appropriately than you used
touche. You really need to stick to English.

I will, in the final analysis, probably label the chapter
on this lineage: "An Intriguing Possibility Which Is Probably True And Certain." Try
that one on for size, shape and significance.

"Probably True and Certain" contains an inherent contradiction in
terms. If it is certain, then there can be no "probably" about it. If
it is only probable, it is not certain. This would, of course, be
partially resolved if you didn't insist on using "True And Certain" as
a single indivisible word.

And your royal lineage IS?

.. . . absolutely irrelevant. One need not have a royal descent to be
able to see the flaws in one - in fact, it may prove easier to see the
flaws when one is not emotionally invested, as some descendants tend
to become.


And still none of that genealogy Bill so wanted to talk about, but
can't quite seem to bring himself to talk about.

taf

wjhonson

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av wjhonson » 23 nov 2007 22:07:02

On Nov 23, 9:23 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Yes by the way, Bridget also became a nun. One of them, I forget actually
became rather high-up like a prioress of something of the sort. The line goes
forward about another 4 generations, I was tracing them yesterday, if anyone
is interested I will give more details.


Will Johnson
--------------------------

Yes Will the reference that you couldn't remember is that Bridget
became
Bridget /More/ , prioress of the English Benedictine nuns of our Lady
of Hope in Paris
and died "aged 83" on 11 Oct 1692
cf http://books.google.com/books?id=I6YEAA ... e#PPR57,M1

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av wjhonson » 23 nov 2007 22:12:03

On Nov 23, 9:23 am, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
As to Miss Gage, I had already had two daughters, unmarried in their uncle's
will, and then the other day I found that someone calls her Elizabeth Gage.
So if correct that would decide which of the two he married. If you want
the source I'll forward it when I get to my office.

Will Johnson
----------------------

Yes Will, as to Miss Gage, you neglected to record your SOURCE stating
that her name was Elizabeth. Shame on you you loutish clod, may you
be cursed with premature graying.

Now as to when Elizabeth Gage, could have married, if this was indeed
she, you obliquely referred to her mention unmarried in her uncle's
Will. This uncle was John Gage, esq of Firle eldest son of Sir Edward
Gage, Knt of Firle by his wife Elizabeth Parker.

This John Gage married Margaret Copley and had at least one child, a
girl, unnamed in my sources who married Sir Henry Guldeford, Knt of
Taplow, Bucks. and Hempstead, Kent.

At any rate, John Gage's will is dated 2 Jan 1596, and in this
Elizabeth is "not yet 22". Which helps with the chronology.

Will Johnson

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 23 nov 2007 23:20:15

ADDENDA:

ADDENDUM 5: 17THC PROVENANCE OF THE BML PECK PEDIGREE,
COMMISSIONED ON BEHALF OF NICHOLAS PECK AS PER IRA B. PECK'S INTRO:
[ see Nat Taylor, gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].

fchal@charm.net wrote:

On Nov 21, 1:07 pm, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/21/2007 8:30:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

fc...@charm.net writes:

If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document.

I dispute that we know this.
Will

Quite right Will. It was a poor choice of words on my part. I think
there's a good chance that the document might be a forgery. At this
point based on Nat Taylor's estimate of the accession of the
manuscript, I am willing to give Somerby a pass as the author for now.
Only a physical examination of the MS will resolve this.

See Nat's post

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... ode=source

Fred Chalfant

Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in

soc.genealogy.medieval

Message from discussion Peck Pedigree: new information on BL Add MS 5524
View parsed - Show only message text
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!sn-xt-sjc-05!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!nltaylor
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Peck Pedigree: new information on BL Add MS 5524
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:37:08 -0400
Organization: .
Message-ID: <nltaylor-11A580.22370830102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 123

I consulted printed sources on BL manuscripts yesterday. The BL divides
all its manuscripts into named collections (Cotton, Harley, etc.)--which
all came in together as large sets, and all others are simply
'Additional', numbered consecutively from the early 1700s to the
present. Periodic catalogues have been printed, since 1782, listing the
manuscripts and describing them--and sometimes saying something about
their provenance.

The 1782 catalogue covered manuscripts through no. 5017. From 1835
forward, continuous volumes list all the MSS from no. 10019 through the
present (I think they're up above 80,000).

Unfortunately the period 1783 to 1835 (MSS nos. 5018 to 10018) does not
have a consecutive catalogue noting the manuscripts one by one, as is in
print for all earlier and later accessions. There is, apparently a
catalogue of them which exists as a manuscript itself, at the BL:

'Catalogue of the Additions made to the Department of Manuscripts since
the publication of Mr. Ayscough's Catalogue in 1782', 1829-1837. 24
vols. [Covers Add. MSS 5018-7079]

This is cited in:

M. A. E. Nickson, _British Library: Guide to the Catalogues and indexes
of the Department of Manuscripts_ (London, 1978).

However, there is a separate sort of work in print, uniquely for the
period 1783 to 1835: a subject index, published in 1849, listing
individual items found in those manuscripts, often down to the page
level. This work is:

_Index to the Additional Manuscripts with those of the Egerton
Collection preserved in the British Museum and acquired in the years
1783-1835_ (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1849).

Under the heading "Peck, family of" it lists "Pedigree: [Add. MS] 5524,
ff. 152, 152b, 153, 153b, and 154." and "Arms: [Add. MS] 5524, folio
221."

While it is not a catalogue as such, and so does not contain a
volume-level description or provenance, the numbering suggests that Add.
MS 5524 was probably acquired around 1790 to 1810, and that the Peck
pedigree was in it before 1849. Browsing the index also gives clues
about the nature of the MS. On the same page of the index there are
references to --

Peche, family of (co. Suff.)
Philipott, family of

This suggests that the MS volume as a whole is an authentic antiquarian
MS of at least the 18th century--perhaps specializing in Suffolk
pedigrees--acquired by the BL at the end of the 18th century. Google
Books returns a few references to this MS showing that it seems to focus
on Norfolk and Suffolk families. This information rules out the
scenario that the pedigree exists in a set of papers donated in the
mid-19th century, and makes it nearly impossible that the whole thing
was concocted by Somerby.

Another possible scenario had been that the Suffolk branch might have
been interpolated at a later point (i.e. by Somerby): this is also
unlikely if the MS is specifically focused on Suffolk families (thus it
only should be there in the first place because of the Suffolk
connection). At any rate, whether it is interpolated or altered (e.g.
if the fifth page were added later) should be easy to discern looking at
the original, in person (reviewing the nature of the binding, colors of
the ink, comparisons of the hands, etc.).

The handwriting still raises some flags. Is it really from 1620? The
whole thing may an eighteenth-century copy of an earlier pedigree
(attestation and all): there are many 18th-c genealogical MSS floating
around the British library, for example the prolific copywork of Edward
Hasted, the Kentish antiquary, in the Harley MSS. On this pedigree, the
first two heralds' names (Henry St. George, Richmond Herald, and Henry
Chitting, Chester Herald) look like they're written in the same hand, so
the whole could be a later copy of a pedigree with their attestation
copied as well. Philpott's name appears written as a signature, though
this too may not be original. There are characteristics of the hand
which do not match the early 17th century (capital C and lower-case h,
for example). On the other hand, many pedigrees, even sixteenth-century
ones, appear to have used italic lettering as a way to distinguish them
from every-day script.

But even if the MS is physically 'authentic', we still must assume no
link between the Beccles & Wakefield Pecks: the chronology is impossible
and the sons of John Peck of Wakefield here do not match his will or the
Yorkshire visitations. So where did the impetus for this fraudulent link
come from? Who was responsible for first grafting the Beccles family
onto Wakefield? If the document really comes from the pen of Philpott
or one of his confreres, it most likely was done for Nicholas Peck,
brother of the emigrant. He is said to have married an heraldic
heiress; his son is the only person of the next generation noted, and
there is a six-quarter achievement (incorrectly so, as the fourth
quarter, the bend with three mullets for Hatham of Scarborough, is not
in the alleged direct line above the Suffolk Pecks) representing the
young William. Nicholas is the 'person who matters' in the last
recorded generation, who is invariably the person for whom the pedigree
was originally compiled.

If it was made for him, it is surprising that the Suffolk Pecks did not
make it into the Visitation of Suffolk in 1634/5. I would consult Joan
Corder's _Dictionary of Suffolk Arms_ (1965) to see whether any use of
these arms by the Suffolk Pecks is found, anywhere other than in this
MS.

To repeat: it is still important to examine the original MS, and its
context & provenance, but I am inclined to absolve Somerby of the charge
of physical forgery of this leaf, unless other red flags are raised or
sustained on physical inspection. If no interpolation or alteration is
obvious, this is most likely to be an authentic 17th-century document or
an 18th-century copy of a 17th-century document. Then the fraudulent
association of the Suffolk and Yorkshire families probably was concocted
for Nicholas Peck around 1620.

Someone suggested simply asking the College of Arms for copies of
whatever they may have on this; it is the obvious next step after
looking at this BL manuscript. Unfortunately the heralds' official
assistance might be rather costly, even for a memorandum simply listing
the manuscripts they hold which treat the Wakefield and (if any) Beccles
Pecks. With a photo of the BL manuscript, they might be in a position
to authenticate or reject the signature of, say, Philpot.

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net

Thank you once again, one and all, especially
scholars Nat Taylor and fchal@charm.net,
I remain your humble servant and scholar,

Bill

*****





____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 23 nov 2007 23:58:11

Robert Peffers wrote:

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EGA1j.27941$ib1.26818@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...


"Robert Peffers" <peffers50@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:JcydnWbzrucCc9janZ2dnUVZ8qijnZ2d@bt.com...

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:9Jj1j.42091$T8.14391@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Robert Peffers wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:fOSdnRXcepWpNtnanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@rcn.net...

his name isn't george.

It isn't Windsor either, but, as monarch, he can choose whatever name
he likes.
After all there was never a Queen Elizabeth I of the UK but the
present incumbent called herself, Elizabeth II.

Quiz time: which king was the third of that name of England, the
second

of

Scotland, and the first of Ireland?
--
John Briggs


Who bloody cares?


Well, this is a History group, not soc.rabid.anti.royals

Surreyman



Oh! So just what, "group", did you think you posted your message into?
Your headers say,
"alt.history.british,alt.talk.royalty,soc.culture.scottish,soc.genealogy.medieval,soc.history.medieval".

I, and several others, are reading your stuff in,
"soc.culture.scottish", and it is not yours, or anybody else's place to
tell us what we should discuss in the groups we are reading your posts in.
If you think them off topic in whatever group you are reading them in
then trim that group from the headers before you hit send.

Oh, dear. You were the one implying it was off-topic. Surreyman was
saying it was on-topic. I added it was a rare post which was on-topic
for ALL the groups it was posted to.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 00:00:11

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

STARK...

Source?

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.


DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas


Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]

July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.
April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.
September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.
June 1954 - Meat and bacon.

You couldn't buy a hamburger, yet here was Edinburgh Corporation handing
precious metal gifts to the richest woman in the World.



Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 00:01:16

Robert Peffers wrote:


Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Gjest

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 nov 2007 00:57:02

Dear Fellow Listers,
Yes, Oliver Cromwell was beheaded , et cetera
( The Usual Punishment for Traitors at that time) some two years after He
died. Note : If I recall correctly, Elizabeth II and family as well as anyone
else, if currently found guilty of Treason or any other crime. wouldn`t be
executed but rather imprisoned for the balance of their lives as Parliament passed
an Act some time ago prohibiting execution (capital punishment).
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 01:35:27

Meat was still being rationed in 1954?

Grim Indeed...

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m1p$2t0$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

STARK...

Source?

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.


DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]

July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.
April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.
September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.
June 1954 - Meat and bacon.

You couldn't buy a hamburger, yet here was Edinburgh Corporation
handing
precious metal gifts to the richest woman in the World.

John Briggs

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Briggs » 24 nov 2007 01:40:03

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Meat was still being rationed in 1954?

Grim Indeed...

Only the USA ended the war twice as rich as when it started.
--
John Briggs

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 24 nov 2007 01:51:03

In article <fi7m1p$2t0$2@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

STARK...

Source?

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.

[Snip]

Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]

July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.

I remember that.

April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.

It was before that that I helped take the food to the table, dropped an egg,
and wondered why my mother cried.

September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.

And it must have been before that that I sat at the table after everyone else
had finished and ate all the cheese.

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 02:46:28

Citizen Jimserac wrote:

I always wondered what happened to Inspector Clouseau after he left
the detectives - it appears he might have been appointed director of
emergency services.

Yup, and then he was drafted to Portugal.

wjhonson

Re: Ancestry of Elisabet Sevedsdotter Ribbing, the secret wi

Legg inn av wjhonson » 24 nov 2007 02:53:02

You didn't give any dates but Louda and Maclagan state that Elizabeth
Ribbing was born 1597 and died 1662. It would be nice to have a
primary source for, from where these dates come.

Also can you name specifically the female daughter of Charles VIII who
married an Erik somebody, and do they have dates?

Thanks
Will Johnson

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 03:01:55

John Cartmell wrote:
In article <fi7m1p$2t0$2@mouse.otenet.gr>,
Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:


STARK...

Source?


Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.


[Snip]


Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]


July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.


I remember that.


April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.


It was before that that I helped take the food to the table, dropped an egg,
and wondered why my mother cried.


September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.


And it must have been before that that I sat at the table after everyone else
had finished and ate all the cheese.

You must have been a fiendish baby-boomer. :-)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 03:36:22

Britain, and the British, made some VERY bad mistakes in the 1930's -- and
paid for them.

In fact you are still paying for them.

If you had had more backbone in the 1930's and listened to Cousin Winston,
you could have avoided most of the grief.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4rK1j.3905$B97.1653@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Meat was still being rationed in 1954?

Grim Indeed...

Only the USA ended the war twice as rich as when it started.
--
John Briggs

John Cartmell

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av John Cartmell » 24 nov 2007 03:39:02

In article <fi80mh$6kp$1@mouse.otenet.gr>, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr>
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article <fi7m1p$2t0$2@mouse.otenet.gr>, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr
wrote:

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.

Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]

July 1948 - Bread. December 1948 - Jam. May 1950 - Points rationing
ended. October 1952 - Tea. February 1953 - Sweets.

I remember that.

Fourth birthday present. ;-)

April 1953 - Cream. March 1953 - Eggs.

It was before that that I helped take the food to the table, dropped an
egg, and wondered why my mother cried.

September 1953 - Sugar. May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and
cooking fats.

And it must have been before that that I sat at the table after everyone
else had finished and ate all the cheese.

You must have been a fiendish baby-boomer. :-)

I must have been horrible! I was two when I ate the cheese and 2/3 when I
dropped that egg.

--
John Cartmell john@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 http://www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 03:43:54

Renia Simmonds is HERSELF a baby boomer -- born in 1952...

And a perpetuator of all their hare-brained ideas and excesses.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer>

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi80mh$6kp$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

John Cartmell wrote:

In article <fi7m1p$2t0$2@mouse.otenet.gr>,

Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

D. Spencer Hines wrote:


STARK...

Source?


Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.


[Snip]


Here were the dates rations stopped. [throughout the United Kingdom?]


July 1948 - Bread.
December 1948 - Jam.
May 1950 - Points rationing ended.
October 1952 - Tea.
February 1953 - Sweets.


I remember that.


April 1953 - Cream.
March 1953 - Eggs.


It was before that that I helped take the food to the table, dropped an
egg,
and wondered why my mother cried.


September 1953 - Sugar.
May 1954 - Butter, cheese, margarine and cooking fats.


And it must have been before that that I sat at the table after everyone
else
had finished and ate all the cheese.

You must have been a fiendish baby-boomer. :-)

D. Spencer Hines

Re: History Channel Barbarian Series

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 03:56:26

Hmmmmmm...

We have our own long-running Barbarian Series right here on AHB, ATR, SCS,
SGM and SHM....

Much better and juicier.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Gjest

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 nov 2007 05:16:02

On Nov 23, 1:20 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
ADDENDA:

ADDENDUM 5: 17THC PROVENANCE OF THE BML PECK PEDIGREE,
COMMISSIONED ON BEHALF OF NICHOLAS PECK AS PER IRA B. PECK'S INTRO:
[ see Nat Taylor, gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].

Why on earth, when you have the specific post and date right there in
the message you are quoting, would you give as your reference "gen-
medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007" : it borders on obstructionism to
give such an imprecise reference when you know it precisely.

See Nat's post

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.gene ... 9c505c38...


Message from discussion Peck Pedigree: new information on BL Add MS 5524
From: Nathaniel Taylor <nltay...@nltaylor.net
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
Subject: Peck Pedigree: new information on BL Add MS 5524
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:37:08 -0400
Organization: .
Message-ID: <nltaylor-11A580.22370830102007@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net

I consulted printed sources on BL manuscripts yesterday. The BL divides
all its manuscripts into named collections (Cotton, Harley, etc.)--which
all came in together as large sets, and all others are simply
'Additional', numbered consecutively from the early 1700s to the
present. Periodic catalogues have been printed, since 1782, listing the
manuscripts and describing them--and sometimes saying something about
their provenance.

The 1782 catalogue covered manuscripts through no. 5017. From 1835
forward, continuous volumes list all the MSS from no. 10019 through the
present (I think they're up above 80,000).

Unfortunately the period 1783 to 1835 (MSS nos. 5018 to 10018) does not
have a consecutive catalogue noting the manuscripts one by one, as is in
print for all earlier and later accessions. There is, apparently a
catalogue of them which exists as a manuscript itself, at the BL:

'Catalogue of the Additions made to the Department of Manuscripts since
the publication of Mr. Ayscough's Catalogue in 1782', 1829-1837. 24
vols. [Covers Add. MSS 5018-7079]

This is cited in:

M. A. E. Nickson, _British Library: Guide to the Catalogues and indexes
of the Department of Manuscripts_ (London, 1978).

However, there is a separate sort of work in print, uniquely for the
period 1783 to 1835: a subject index, published in 1849, listing
individual items found in those manuscripts, often down to the page
level. This work is:


.. . . etc.

So, what Nat has posted is evidence that the manuscript in question
was deposited in the British Library (note, it is British Library or
BL, not BML, but given that you insist on using the wrong abbreviation
for The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, I somehow
doubt you will stop using the wrong one for the British Library) in
the late 18th century. That is all he has provided evidence for,
except for expressing doubt that the copy in the British Library dates
from the 17th century, because of the script (a concern I share).

It is either extremely dishonest or entirely delusional to use this
post as an 'addendum' entitled:

17THC PROVENANCE OF THE BML PECK PEDIGREE,
COMMISSIONED ON BEHALF OF NICHOLAS PECK AS PER IRA B. PECK'S INTRO:
[ see Nat Taylor, gen-medieval archives, Oct-Nov, 2007 ].

Nat Taylor reached no such conclusion.

taf

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 05:17:02

--- John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Renia wrote:
John Briggs wrote:
Renia wrote:


What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise
Windsor" and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a
title?

Lady Louise Windsor.

It's not a title.


"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated
that "Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as
part of the title - like "de Arundel".)


Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She
has the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a
knight. He also has no title.

Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an
Earl.
However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess,
because her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter
would have the style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of
Wessex.


I think you are drawing "title" too narrowly (by excluding both
courtesy titles and some legal titles).

You are confusing titles with styles of address.

Well, you are the one who is claiming that courtesy titles are not titles...

For a start, some styles are legal titles - and I think Princess
Louise falls in to this category, as she is a Princess of the United
Kingdom in her own right. (It is nothing to do with what her father
decided - he decided *not* to style her "Princess Louise", but he
doesn't issue Royal Warrants! The title "Prince" or "Princess" is
borne by children of the sovereign, and by the children of sons of
the sovereign.) The styles of wives of peers are also legal titles,
despite not being
substantive peerages. [I'm not absolutely sure if that applies to
"Lady X" as well as "Viscountess X" for the wife of a viscount.]
Similarly with the wives of knights, but the wrinkle here is that
the style of the legal title is Dame Heather McCartney - Lady
McCartney is, strictly speaking, a courtesy title rather than a
legal one - but it is usually treated as if it were the legal title.

There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons
are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.

"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?

And which is the style and which the title: "Viscount" or "Lord"?

Princess Michael is a princess by right of her husband, hence she is
not known as Princess Marie-Christine. Rather like old-fashioned
envelopes or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as Mrs
John Briggs, for example.

You are now confusing rank with title. She is styled Princess Michael
because of her husband's rank, rather than because of his title.

Neither Lady McCartney nor her husband possess a title. He is a knight
and entitled to use the style, Sir. By right of her husband, Heather
Mills-McCartney is entitled to use the style, Lady.

You are not going to get away with claimimg that a knight does not have a
title.

The wife of a Baronet is styled "Lady", by right of her husband
(unless she possesses a higher rank of her own). The wife of a Knight
(which is a decoration, not a title) is styled "Lady" followed by the
knight's surname, in our example's case, McCartney. She is not Lady
Heather McCartney, she is Lady Paul McCartney, but his forename is
excluded from the style, thus, she is Lady McCartney.

A masterly analysis, but completely wrong. As I explained (patiently) the
legal title of a wife of a knight is "Dame Heather McCartney", but that is
never used (except in legal documents - quite possibly including divorce
proceedings), and instead the style (or quite possibly courtesy title) "Lady
McCartney" is employed instead.

The idea that knighthood is a decoration, not a title, is complete bollocks.
You are now confusing decorations of orders, with ranks and titles!

My great-grandmother was a "Lady" by right of her husband. Some
documents refer to her as "Dame", but I believe that is more of a
fashion than a correct style. My ancestor was an Archbishop, and his
wife was referred to as "Dame" when really, she was a simple "Mrs".

Queen Elizabeth I had the same problem of not knowing how to address the
wife of an archbishop... (She disapproved of married clergy!)

In Canterbury Cathedral you will see the tomb of Cardinal Odet de Coligny -
he had died (or been murdered) while in England. He had become a Huguenot,
and married. The French were at somewhat of a loss as to know how to
address his wife. They tried "Madame la Cardinale", but it didn't sound
right. So they settled on "Comtesse de Beauvais". [He was Count-Bishop of
Beauvais.]

It is quite possible that your ancestor was a knight. As a clergyman, he
could not use the style (or title) "Sir". (I suppose he had to be content
with the decoration...) But his wife would still have the style, title ,
rank or decoration..

Interestingly, this does not apply to clergymen who are baronets -
presumably this really *is* a title rather than a mere decoration... At any
rate, they quite happily use the style (or possibly title...) "Sir".

Martha insisted on being addressed as "Lady Washington"...
--
John Briggs


BA: Here in America we have styles, too: I insist on Renia addressing me
as "Professor Arnold"...The Insipid One and The Deconstruction can ignore me,
altogether: hereafter. You can see there styles, above.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 24 nov 2007 08:35:03

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f46600a6cjohn@cartmell.demon.co.uk...
In article <fi6vpb$4l1$1@registered.motzarella.org>, William Black
william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

"John Cartmell" <john@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4f464ba473john@cartmell.demon.co.uk...

They reign at our pleasure because we choose them above Presidents;
should they start to believe their own propaganda at being chosen by
God
- or being special in any other way - then it's time to call them in
for
a career interview and to reconsider their working conditions and side
benefits.

We've been there and done that, and cut his head off...

And if we have to do it again ...


And again, and again.

But, as a general rule, British royalty are quick learners when it comes
to hanging onto their palaces and courtiers and jewellery.

After 1642 they've got to be both monumentally stupid and unbelievably
arrogant to not spot which way the wind is blowing.

Certainly the only two who've got the sack since 1649 seem to have had both
problems.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 24 nov 2007 08:38:02

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:J7M1j.19$5l3.983@eagle.america.net...
Britain, and the British, made some VERY bad mistakes in the 1930's -- and
paid for them.

In fact you are still paying for them.

If you had had more backbone in the 1930's and listened to Cousin Winston,
you could have avoided most of the grief.

Perhaps you can suggest a better strategy?

Going to war in 1936 would have been a disaster.

No modern aircraft or tanks for a start, and the Germans had loads of nice
new shiny stuff.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av William Black » 24 nov 2007 08:51:01

<NicholasIII@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f3ad395-5565-42ae-8973-a6ad0fc14c85@j44g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...

The
army was the personal body guard of the ruler.

When and where?


Unless there's been a specific act repealing that status, legally the
Crown Estate belongs to the Queen. Period. End of story. Do not pass
go, do not collect $200.

The Crown Estates Office is an arm of the Home Civil Service coming under
the control of a Cabinet Minister called The Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster.

In other words the stuff may belong to her but she doesn't get to run them,
have any say in the management of them or appoint any of the staff who work
on them.

Every government establishment and military base is technically part of the
'crown estate' but they belong to the Queen for just as long as she sits
down and keeps quiet about it.

The day she decides to sell Portsmouth Dockyard to pay the vet's bill for
the corgis is the day she gets replaced.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 24 nov 2007 10:45:02

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m1p$2t0$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:

STARK...

Source?

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.



And me!

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 24 nov 2007 10:52:16

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m3q$2t0$3@mouse.otenet.gr...
Robert Peffers wrote:


Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?

Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Surreyman

a.spencer3

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av a.spencer3 » 24 nov 2007 10:56:28

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:kaF1j.11$5l3.436@eagle.america.net...
People don't seem to understand his name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

Diana had some problems with all that at their wedding.

He could choose any of those names -- or a new one, I suppose.

But GEORGE does seem to have a quite reasonable chance of selection.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Britannicus Traductus Sum



'George' has been unofficially touted by 'friends' and officially denied by
Clarence House.
It's all total conjecture.

Surreyman

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 11:00:18

Bill Arnold wrote:


BA: Here in America we have styles, too: I insist on Renia addressing me
as "Professor Arnold"...The Insipid One and The Deconstruction can ignore me,
altogether: hereafter. You can see there styles, above.

Here in England, Professor Arnold, we put BA _after_ our names. :-)

Renia

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 11:05:33

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: The only software I use for proof-reading are the little grey cells in
my brain.

BA: When I proofread at a newspaper, we had the NYT Style sheet.

When I proof-read at a newspaper, we had our own in-house style sheet
but we were hired for our linguistic and research abilities.


Renia: We all make mistakes. All of us. We all type quickly, being keen to
write down what we want to say. Most of the time, it doesn't matter how
things are written. You are quite correct - it's only a newsgroup.

BA: Why didn't you end there?

Renia: But when someone spends half the time boasting of how he used to teach
English, then we would expect a better standard of writing. Is that
important? Not in itself, but someone who boasts about one thing but is
found lacking in it, may be found lacking in other areas he boasts of.
Like scholarship.

BA: Well, I am speechless. You: The Ice Princess! Does it bother you I was
a professor of classics? And I taught English Comp 101 and 102, all the
frosh stuff including research paper? Of course, I taught the MLA Style
Sheet rules. Does that bother you, too? But of course: You are The Ice
Princess.

Well, you see, that is why I didn't "end there". I don't believe you.
Your English just isn't good enough to be an English teacher. If you
were considered good enough to be an English teacher then that tells us
a lot about the state of education today. Perhaps you have simply lost
some of your eloquence as the years go by.

As to my being bothered whether you were a professor of classics, the
answer is no. I come from a family of academics and classicists. That
doesn't make me one, but I'm used to their eccentricities.

Ice Princess! I'm usually labelled hot-headed.

Renia

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 11:21:32

a.spencer3 wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m3q$2t0$3@mouse.otenet.gr...

Robert Peffers wrote:



Don't talk rubbish. If the UK had acted the same as those why really got
rid of their royals they would have been lucky to have escaped with
their heads still on their bodies.

So Cromwell lost his head, did he?


Actually, I believe he did, posthumously.

Yes he did, after he was dug up as a result of post-Commonwealth
royalist guilt.

But he kept his head and ruled the country having "got rid of the
royals", which was my point.

pierre_aronax@hotmail.com

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av pierre_aronax@hotmail.com » 24 nov 2007 12:05:04

On 21 nov, 21:49, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
fchal: If its provenance is 17th Century, which I don't believe, how can it
be a medieval document? We know Somerby is innocent of creating the
document. What we don't know is whether he knowingly passed along a
forgery. Nothing like a forger to spot another forger. The salient points
about Robert Peck of Beccles were also discussed in 2003 at the Peck Family
List:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/pe ... 1055651042

BA: So you do not believe the BML Peck pedigree provenance is 17thC.
Not surprised: you probably do not believe Napoleon was crowned Emperor
in 1603, either.

I, at least, do not believe it :)

Pierre

Bill Arnold

Re: Descendants of Sir Thomas More - Ref. John Moore (b.1584

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 13:25:07

--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

On Nov 23, 12:02 pm, marwd_...@hotmail.com wrote:

I live in England and
Thomas More is, on my mothers side, my 14x great grandfather on a line
of descent from his son John down to a son of Basil More (c. 1638-1702).

Eminent family genealogists in England have, for over 30 years,
accepted that the Jesuits Henry More (1586-1661) and Thomas More
(1587-1623) were the sons of Mary More (daughter of Thomas More II and
Mary Scrope) and her husband Edward Moore/More of Haddon, Oxfordshire.



Will: What sources are these "eminent family genealogists" using that we can
also consult, to prove to ourselves, that they are correct? Since we,
on this list, do not take the word of any living person :)

BA: Correct, least of all self-serving individuals who promote their own websites.
Might as well shut it down, Will. No one take the word of any living person and
never will again. O: is that a smiley at the end of that bizarre pronouncement?

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 13:30:04

--- wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote:

On Nov 23, 8:54 pm, Bill Arnold <billarnold...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I wrote quite awhile ago, that in English Comp I taught that
most statements can be categorized as statements of fact,
inferences, or value judgments.

In gentleman and scholar
Nat Taylor's fine post about the BML Peck Pedigree he made
some statements of fact, you know, the stuff of genealogy,
dates, names, places. Then he drew some inferences, which
were his conclusions with which we can agree or disagree,
and I choose to in some cases agree and in some disagree.
Sometimes, conclusions can be more loosely termed opinions.
And lastly, he offered some value judgments, and actually
withdrew some earlier ones based on suppositions and now
modified by new facts at his disposal.

-------------------------
Will: Here we see Bill, the English Professor demonstrating his technique,

where he has a 500 post argument, *before* he finally defines for us,
that in his world, all utterences must be classified into three and
only three categories : statements of fact, inferences, and value
judgements.

BA: Excuse me, Will, but this English professor points out that that
is *judgments* with *NO* e! And you have proven your worthlessness
once again by *deceitfully* trying to CON this list, and as you know
we here do *not* trust any living person, especially the likes of you.
You substituted *ALL* for *MOST* from my post. This is the sort
of tripe you find in post after post by Will Johnson. One wonders
how reliable his website is?

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 13:40:04

BA: Here in America we have styles, too: I insist on Renia addressing me
as "Professor Arnold"...The Insipid One and The Deconstruction can ignore me,
altogether: hereafter. You can see there styles, above.

Renia: Here in England, Professor Arnold, we put BA _after_ our names. :-)

BA: Bravo, you got the title right. And you missed my typo, *their* above?
I was hoping you would turn out to be one of the better students in my
class and catch me testing you? O: here in America, Ice Princess Renia,
we have ranks, too: Adjunct Professor, if part-time, and if full line professors,
Instructor [which is entry level], Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,
Professor aka Full Professor, thence, honorary stuff like: Professor Emeritus.
And also here in America, after our names, if *educated* we put B.B.A.,
as I do with my degree in finance, minor in English, then my 60-hour grad
degree, M.F.A. in Creative Writing! Some have miss that I write CREATIVELY!
So: Renia, we have not gotten rid of all the royal trappings of Britannia
in our sojourn across the Big Pond! Rule Britannia!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 13:49:04

Renia: The only software I use for proof-reading are the little grey cells in my brain.

BA: When I proofread at a newspaper, we had the NYT Style sheet.

Renia: When I proof-read at a newspaper, we had our own in-house style sheet
but we were hired for our linguistic and research abilities.

BA: Every newspaper has an *in-house style sheet* with an ultimate reference
to a model, so do not confuse the naifs in journalism on this list. We had ours
at the four newspapers I worked at. They were all different as the content of the
papers were all different, which makes sense, right: Ice Princess Renia?

Renia: Well, you see, that is why I didn't "end there". I don't believe you.
Your English just isn't good enough to be an English teacher. If you
were considered good enough to be an English teacher then that tells us
a lot about the state of education today. Perhaps you have simply lost
some of your eloquence as the years go by.

BA: No, I have been *dumming-down* for the Dim-Wits who inhabit this list
in the nooks and crannies. Sheesh, they are so silly here they attack lions,
these wilderbeasts :0

Renia: As to my being bothered whether you were a professor of classics, the
answer is no. I come from a family of academics and classicists. That
doesn't make me one, but I'm used to their eccentricities.

BA: on your paternal or maternal side? It makes a difference, you know.

Renia: Ice Princess! I'm usually labelled hot-headed.

BA: i won't go there.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: Peck Pedigree resolution: CHARLEMAGNE DESCENT

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 13:50:06

BA: So you do not believe the BML Peck pedigree provenance is 17thC.
Not surprised: you probably do not believe Napoleon was crowned Emperor
in 1603, either.

Perre: I, at least, do not believe it :)

BA: Which? The *provenance* or the Emperor date? You are right on one,
and wrong on the other. Choose!

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Gjest

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 nov 2007 14:58:02

Dear John Briggs, Renia and others,
Professionally (He is a
film producer), Edward used Edward Windsor until He married, when He was made
Earl of Wessex with the understanding that when his father dies He will
become Duke of Edinburgh (the then sovereign and Parliament being agreeable to it
at that time) since then He has used Edward Wessex and his young daughter is
known as Louise Wessex (no of).. Prince Michael of Kent is so styled because He
is a royal Duke, just as the Duke of Gloucester is (? was) rather than a
peerage Duke . Whereas a peerage Duke or Duchess is styled " His / Her Grace the
Duke / Duchess of X., a Royal Duke / Duchess (Directly Descended from a
former Sovereign) is His / Her Royal Highness Prince / Princess Y, Duke /
Duchess of X.. Isn`t Sarah , though divorced from Prince Andrew still referred to
as Sarah , Duchess of York ? Though I think They dropped the Her Royal Highness
after the divorce.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-produc ... 0000000001)

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 15:05:34

Bill Arnold wrote:
BA: Here in America we have styles, too: I insist on Renia addressing me
as "Professor Arnold"...The Insipid One and The Deconstruction can ignore me,
altogether: hereafter. You can see there styles, above.

Renia: Here in England, Professor Arnold, we put BA _after_ our names. :-)

BA: Bravo, you got the title right. And you missed my typo, *their* above?

I'm not here to proof-read your stuff.


I was hoping you would turn out to be one of the better students in my
class and catch me testing you? O: here in America, Ice Princess Renia,
we have ranks, too: Adjunct Professor, if part-time, and if full line professors,
Instructor [which is entry level], Assistant Professor, Associate Professor,
Professor aka Full Professor, thence, honorary stuff like: Professor Emeritus.
And also here in America, after our names, if *educated* we put B.B.A.,
as I do with my degree in finance, minor in English, then my 60-hour grad
degree, M.F.A. in Creative Writing! Some have miss that I write CREATIVELY!
So: Renia, we have not gotten rid of all the royal trappings of Britannia
in our sojourn across the Big Pond! Rule Britannia!

I suppose you are aware you are not the only professor on this newsgroup?

Renia

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 15:07:00

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: As to my being bothered whether you were a professor of classics, the
answer is no. I come from a family of academics and classicists. That
doesn't make me one, but I'm used to their eccentricities.

BA: on your paternal or maternal side? It makes a difference, you know.

Both.

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 15:32:03

Renia: I suppose you are aware you are not the only professor on this newsgroup?

BA: But of course. I have a 5-year B.B.A. in Finance: and know how to *account*
for things. Even things which are *not* apparent to others. That is what we learned
in Finance, to read balance sheets, cash-flow statements, and annual reports to
find the liars vs. the honest companies. I will not wax Freudian about the company [pun]
some on this list keep. You know, as a classics professor, that I would never
suggest to The Insipid One that he find out about *Lysistrata* because he thinks
he invented sex and the dim-wit attacks on others: the theme of the play is so
far above his nimble brain he would not be able to fathom it. How's that for a
mixed-metaphor? Nor would I ever ever ever ever ever ever ever question that
The Deconstructionist is a quote-professor-unquote. He certainly pretends to
think like one. As for The Ice Princess, now she is in a world unto herself, with
no alliances to hinder her thoughts. Kinda nice. You have a nice niche here on
gen-medieval and your name on The Lion's acknowledgment page next to
Gary Boyd Roberts told me to watch out whenever you write. Didn't you once
write you were in Greece, and now you wax "here in England"?

Bill

*****




____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 15:35:05

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:


Renia: As to my being bothered whether you were a professor of classics, the
answer is no. I come from a family of academics and classicists. That
doesn't make me one, but I'm used to their eccentricities.

BA: on your paternal or maternal side? It makes a difference, you know.

Both.

I sensed that would be the answer. Now, I am really terrified of The Ice Princess.
You can see in the dark, and for a scholar who wits about The Dark Ages that
is incredible.

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 16:12:58

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: I suppose you are aware you are not the only professor on this newsgroup?

BA: But of course. I have a 5-year B.B.A. in Finance: and know how to *account*
for things. Even things which are *not* apparent to others. That is what we learned
in Finance, to read balance sheets, cash-flow statements, and annual reports to
find the liars vs. the honest companies. I will not wax Freudian about the company [pun]
some on this list keep. You know, as a classics professor, that I would never
suggest to The Insipid One that he find out about *Lysistrata* because he thinks
he invented sex and the dim-wit attacks on others: the theme of the play is so
far above his nimble brain he would not be able to fathom it. How's that for a
mixed-metaphor?

Fabulous, yet you complement the Insipid One but referring to his
"nimble brain".

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 16:13:58

Bill Arnold wrote:

Didn't you once
write you were in Greece, and now you wax "here in England"?

No, I'm British but I've been living in Greece for 5 years. Born in
Scotland, though.

Renia

Re: A NOTE ON SCHOLARSHIP

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 16:15:13

Bill Arnold wrote:

--- Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Bill Arnold wrote:


Renia: As to my being bothered whether you were a professor of classics, the
answer is no. I come from a family of academics and classicists. That
doesn't make me one, but I'm used to their eccentricities.

BA: on your paternal or maternal side? It makes a difference, you know.

Both.


I sensed that would be the answer. Now, I am really terrified of The Ice Princess.

:-)

You can see in the dark, and for a scholar who wits about The Dark Ages that
is incredible.

Bill

:-) ;-)

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 16:16:01

Renia wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: I suppose you are aware you are not the only professor on this
newsgroup?

BA: But of course. I have a 5-year B.B.A. in Finance: and know how to
*account*
for things. Even things which are *not* apparent to others. That is
what we learned
in Finance, to read balance sheets, cash-flow statements, and annual
reports to
find the liars vs. the honest companies. I will not wax Freudian
about the company [pun]
some on this list keep. You know, as a classics professor, that I
would never
suggest to The Insipid One that he find out about *Lysistrata* because
he thinks
he invented sex and the dim-wit attacks on others: the theme of the
play is so
far above his nimble brain he would not be able to fathom it. How's
that for a
mixed-metaphor?

Rectum (in-joke)


Fabulous, yet you complement the Insipid One by referring to his
"nimble brain".

Bill Arnold

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 16:50:05

NicholasIII: If you had had more backbone in the 1930's and listened to Cousin Winston,
you could have avoided most of the grief.

BA: Right, and because of the lack of backbone, 60,000,000 people died worldwide in
WWII. Never sign a pact with The Devil!

1938: 'Peace for our time' - Chamberlain

The British Prime Minister has been hailed as bringing "peace to Europe" after signing a
non-aggression pact with Germany.

PM Neville Chamberlain arrived back in the UK today, holding an agreement signed by
Adolf Hitler which stated the German leader's desire never to go to war with Britain again.

The two men met at the Munich conference between Britain, Germany, Italy and France
yesterday, convened to decide the future of Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.

Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signalled "peace for our time",
after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

The German leader stated in the agreement: "We are determined to continue our efforts
to remove possible sources of difference and thus to contribute to assure the peace of
Europe."

But many MPs are bound to criticise it as part of the Prime Minister's "appeasement" of
German aggression in Europe.

And Mr Chamberlain's personal pact will be little comfort to the Czechoslovakian
Government which has been forced to hand over the region of Sudetenland to Germany,
despite not being present at the conference.

After greeting members of the public at the airport, Mr Chamberlain appeared in front of
another rejoicing throng on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with the King and Queen,
and again later outside 10 Downing Street.

The British Prime Minister was forced to mobilise the Royal Navy four days ago when
Germany announced it was building massive fortifications in Rhineland.

But the Conservative leader has always expressed his desire to find a peaceful solution to
the Fuehrer's wish to create a new - and enlarged - German homeland in Europe.



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 16:55:07

Renia: I suppose you are aware you are not the only professor on this newsgroup?

BA: But of course. I have a 5-year B.B.A. in Finance: and know how to *account*
for things. Even things which are *not* apparent to others. That is what we learned
in Finance, to read balance sheets, cash-flow statements, and annual reports to
find the liars vs. the honest companies. I will not wax Freudian about the company [pun]Excuse
me? I neither *complement*
some on this list keep. You know, as a classics professor, that I would never
suggest to The Insipid One that he find out about *Lysistrata* because he thinks
he invented sex and the dim-wit attacks on others: the theme of the play is so
far above his nimble brain he would not be able to fathom it. How's that for a
mixed-metaphor?

Renia: Fabulous, yet you complement the Insipid One but referring to his
"nimble brain".

BA: Excuse me? I neither *complement* him nor *compliment* him!
Nimble as in *Airhead*: definition of *nimble*: "Quick, light, or agile
in movement or action." Connotations include, superficial, Dr. Pangloss,
witty but lacking depth, smart but no practical substance, nincompoop,
flighty, et al. He will remain on this list, as: The Insipid One! or:
The Ultimate Airhead!!

Bill

*****






____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 17:03:03

BA: Didn't you once write you were in Greece, and now you wax "here in England"?

Renia: No, I'm British but I've been living in Greece for 5 years. Born in Scotland,
though.

BA: I seem to recall you mentioned Greece in a post to gen-medieval. Surely,
then you understand the Greek classics, which I taught: and the *war* import
theme of *Lysistrata.* Some tough ladies. The Iron Lady of England. One of my
favorites, of all time. O, well: maybe you can explain why I have had dreams of
Edinburgh, Scotland, all my life but never having been there? Ancestral genes?
I have English, Scottish and Irish ancestors in my chart. Whether to William I
The Lion King of Scots is still debatable. Best left to The Lion :)

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 17:07:47

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: I suppose you are aware you are not the only professor on this newsgroup?

BA: But of course. I have a 5-year B.B.A. in Finance: and know how to *account*
for things. Even things which are *not* apparent to others. That is what we learned
in Finance, to read balance sheets, cash-flow statements, and annual reports to
find the liars vs. the honest companies. I will not wax Freudian about the company [pun]Excuse
me? I neither *complement*
some on this list keep. You know, as a classics professor, that I would never
suggest to The Insipid One that he find out about *Lysistrata* because he thinks
he invented sex and the dim-wit attacks on others: the theme of the play is so
far above his nimble brain he would not be able to fathom it. How's that for a
mixed-metaphor?

Renia: Fabulous, yet you complement the Insipid One but referring to his
"nimble brain".

BA: Excuse me? I neither *complement* him nor *compliment* him!
Nimble as in *Airhead*: definition of *nimble*: "Quick, light, or agile
in movement or action." Connotations include, superficial, Dr. Pangloss,
witty but lacking depth, smart but no practical substance, nincompoop,
flighty, et al. He will remain on this list, as: The Insipid One! or:
The Ultimate Airhead!!

You said it: "Quick, light, or agile in movement or action."

To say that of a human brain, is to compliment it.

My brain is none too nimble today. Thank you for pointing out my
complementary error.

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 17:10:40

Bill Arnold wrote:

BA: Didn't you once write you were in Greece, and now you wax "here in England"?

Renia: No, I'm British but I've been living in Greece for 5 years. Born in Scotland,
though.

BA: I seem to recall you mentioned Greece in a post to gen-medieval. Surely,
then you understand the Greek classics, which I taught: and the *war* import
theme of *Lysistrata.*


Nope. My interest is in British history, with a growing interest in
medieval British history, hence my presence here and in the *other* group.


Some tough ladies. The Iron Lady of England. One of my
favorites, of all time. O, well: maybe you can explain why I have had dreams of
Edinburgh, Scotland, all my life but never having been there? Ancestral genes?


Dunno, but it's probably because it's fab and the place of my birth. One
of the most beautiful cities in the world, methinks, regardless that it
can be damp.


I have English, Scottish and Irish ancestors in my chart. Whether to William I
The Lion King of Scots is still debatable. Best left to The Lion :)

Bill

*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9 ... QtBI7ntAcJ

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 18:00:06

Bill Arnold wrote:

Renia: I suppose you are aware you are not the only professor on this newsgroup?

BA: But of course. I have a 5-year B.B.A. in Finance: and know how to *account*
for things. Even things which are *not* apparent to others. That is what we learned
in Finance, to read balance sheets, cash-flow statements, and annual reports to
find the liars vs. the honest companies. I will not wax Freudian about the company
[pun]Excuse
me? I neither *complement*
some on this list keep. You know, as a classics professor, that I would never
suggest to The Insipid One that he find out about *Lysistrata* because he thinks
he invented sex and the dim-wit attacks on others: the theme of the play is so
far above his nimble brain he would not be able to fathom it. How's that for a
mixed-metaphor?

Renia: Fabulous, yet you complement the Insipid One but referring to his
"nimble brain".

BA: Excuse me? I neither *complement* him nor *compliment* him!
Nimble as in *Airhead*: definition of *nimble*: "Quick, light, or agile
in movement or action." Connotations include, superficial, Dr. Pangloss,
witty but lacking depth, smart but no practical substance, nincompoop,
flighty, et al. He will remain on this list, as: The Insipid One! or:
The Ultimate Airhead!!


Renia: You said it: "Quick, light, or agile in movement or action."
To say that of a human brain, is to compliment it. My brain is none too nimble
today. Thank you for pointing out my complementary error.

BA: But I did qualify it with "connotations include." Not to make excuses,
because I am who I am, I have always thought in connotations even though
I am well-aware of the denotations of words. I have a tough time dealing
with arrogant Air-Heads like The Insipid One. He wants us all to believe
he thinks denotatively all the time like The Deconstructionist. They are
two peas from the same pod, with brains of the same caliber. They could
be nice people but choose not to be. I am a nice person. As a writer I can
be a nasty person. I know that. But that is because I was a writer at birth:
my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived me: in her
head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles. I have made it my life's
journey. So: in the final analysis, I admit to the limited denotation of *nimble*
but as a poet first and writer second, I have to dig myself out of the connotative
pit I was born in. It is a struggle, but I have managed. That was what probably
drove me to weather the B.B.A. in Finance to make my brain grow up, which
it did. As you can gather, when I taught English Comp I made a very big issue
of the connotations of words as well as the denotations. That is why I said
here I parse sentences for value judgments first, to rid what I read of the
good-bad connotative aspects of what I read. Next, I separate out the
inference aspects from the facts. It is why I tested the waters here about
Napoleon born in 1603: I know it was 04, 2 December, according to history.
That is a fact. And it is what gen-medieval scholars deal in: denotative facts.
Truly, I know that although not everybody here has caught up with me. Some
have and the others: well, The Insipid One and The Deconstructionist can play
their games. So, let me make a disclaimer here about the Peck Pedigree. I
know it is not fact yet, according to genealogy scholars. I saw it on LDS and
Rootsweb and went, Wow, what if? I have a second cousin who is a world-class
genealogist. He keeps me grounded, in genealogy. But he cannot tame the
creative connotative side of me. So, I tried to establish from Wm I The Lion
King of Scots to the Pecks, being unsure of what I read at LDS and Rootsweb.
Thanks to John Higgins, that appears to be highly probable. The sticking point
is the Suffolk Pecks to the Wakefield Pecks. If The Deconstructionist really
believes I am as naif as I pretended, then he needs a real education. This
world is smoke and mirrors, and I know it. I learned it in life, and then in
front of the classroom dealing with thirty minds an hour four times a day
over decades, and in smoke-filled newsrooms with the most outrageous Brit
brains I have ever had to deal with: The Fleet-Street Boys! Thanks to Nat Taylor
the BML Peck Pedigree has been put in its proper place in the minds of
gen-medievalers and it is in the records. What will become of it is beyond
me because I am in no position to authenticate it. As any good scientist
knows, you propose your theory based on your best evidence and others
must verify it: or put it to R.I.P. So, ending where we started: The Insipid
One *needs* to grow up! The Deconstructionist *needs* to stop deconstructing.

:0
Bill

*****






____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Bill Arnold

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Bill Arnold » 24 nov 2007 18:07:03

Renia: Dunno, but it's probably because it's fab and the place of my birth. One
of the most beautiful cities in the world, methinks, regardless that it can be damp.

BA: Well, this IS gen-medieval. If you do not mind, write me one paragraph
about Edinburgh: as a genealogist. I do not mean a tourist view. I have since
googled Edinburgh to its castles and rivers and bridges. You are The Ice Princess,
and I am more terrified of you now to see you write that it is the place of your
birth. There is something you will write about genealogy and Edinburgh which
will be meaningful to me: terribly so, I am afraid. But if you wish to indulge me
and this list, have a go at it. If you decline, I will understand.

Bill


*****


____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 18:18:10

Of course it's conjecture...

That's what makes it fun.

But "to honor his Grandfather, George VI". ?

Charles was just three when George VI died.

DSH

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gzS1j.1076$8k2.1053@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:kaF1j.11$5l3.436@eagle.america.net...

People don't seem to understand his name is Charles Philip Arthur George.

Diana had some problems with all that at their wedding.

He could choose any of those names -- or a new one, I suppose.

But GEORGE does seem to have a quite reasonable chance of selection.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Britannicus Traductus Sum

'George' has been unofficially touted by 'friends' and officially denied
by Clarence House. It's all total conjecture.

Surreyman

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Will Prince Charles Be George VII -- If He Succeeds To T

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 18:27:11

So, blame it all on the Evil United States and your War Debts -- rather than
silly-buggers British politics and National Security policies in the 1920's
and 1930's ---- under a series of Prime Ministers.

You should have listened to Cousin Winston.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"a.spencer3" <a.spencer3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:npS1j.4060$B97.3317@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fi7m1p$2t0$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

STARK...

Source?

Living memory, for some, including my dear mama.

And me!

Surreyman

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 18:35:44

Bill Arnold wrote:

I was a writer at birth:
my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived me:

I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. I have this vision, you see . . .

Ooh! Aah! Darling! Ooh! I need 16 down. What do you find at the bottom
of a bird cage? I have three letters "HIT" preceded by a blank. Ooh!

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 18:40:02

Bill Arnold wrote:

Next, I separate out the
inference aspects from the facts. It is why I tested the waters here about
Napoleon born in 1603: I know it was 04, 2 December, according to history.
That is a fact.

He was born 15th August 1769.

Renia

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av Renia » 24 nov 2007 18:52:34

Bill Arnold wrote:


So, let me make a disclaimer here about the Peck Pedigree. I
know it is not fact yet, according to genealogy scholars. I saw it on LDS and
Rootsweb and went, Wow, what if?


Rootsweb Worldconnect is useful, but it is only a starting-point. Some
databases are utter rubbish. It is so easy to cut-and-paste (or type out
and plagiarise) the pedigree one fancies on to one's own.

I have a second cousin who is a world-class
genealogist. He keeps me grounded, in genealogy. But he cannot tame the
creative connotative side of me. So, I tried to establish from Wm I The Lion
King of Scots to the Pecks, being unsure of what I read at LDS and Rootsweb.

That's the worst way to go about genealogy. One must go backwards, from
the known to the unknown. To go forwards and try and meet up with your
own branch is nigh on impossible, unless you have a very, very rare name.


Thanks to John Higgins, that appears to be highly probable. The sticking point
is the Suffolk Pecks to the Wakefield Pecks.

Peck is not an uncommon surname. There were 2,624 of them in the 1841
Census in England and 1,762 of them in the United States Federal Census
of 1840.

That does compare favourably with Smith with 213,303 in England in 1841
and 39,915 in the US in 1840. But it does not compare so favourably with
Dashwood at 285 in England and 2 in the US in 1840.

If The Deconstructionist really
believes I am as naif as I pretended, then he needs a real education. This
world is smoke and mirrors, and I know it. I learned it in life, and then in
front of the classroom dealing with thirty minds an hour four times a day
over decades, and in smoke-filled newsrooms with the most outrageous Brit
brains I have ever had to deal with: The Fleet-Street Boys! Thanks to Nat Taylor
the BML

BML? Are you trying to say British Museum Libary, or do you mean the
British Library?


Peck Pedigree has been put in its proper place in the minds of
gen-medievalers and it is in the records. What will become of it is beyond
me because I am in no position to authenticate it.

Why not?


As any good scientist
knows, you propose your theory based on your best evidence and others
must verify it:

Or you try and verify it yourself using primary sources. That's what a
genealogist does.

or put it to R.I.P. So, ending where we started: The Insipid
One *needs* to grow up! The Deconstructionist *needs* to stop deconstructing.

Of the former, he never will. Of that latter, that's how his mind works
and that's how an historian's mind works. You could learn from him. We
can all learn from each other. That's why we come on this newsgroup, to
share ideas and information and discuss them.

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 18:57:17

"Bill Arnold" <billarnoldfla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.421.1195923558.28474.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...

I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person.
I know that. But that is because I was a writer at
birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived
me: in her head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.

Hilarious!

His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue Arnold
was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father was doing at
the same time.

Next, I separate out the inference aspects from the facts. It is why I
tested the waters here about Napoleon born in 1603: I know it was
04, 2 December, according to history.

That is a fact.

Blithering Idiocy...

Utter Nonsense.

Napoleon Buonaparte was born on 15 August 1769.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Windsor vs. Wales

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 24 nov 2007 19:05:13

Wellington ws also born in 1769.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»